Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Public Opinion and Liberal Principles
- Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 17
- by Karl Popper
- The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an
- international conference of liberals (in the English sense of this term:
- see the end of the Preface). My purpose was simply to lay the
- foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume
- liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge,
- rather than to endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.
- 1. The Myth of Public Opinion
- We should beware of a number of myths concerning ‘public opinion’ which
- are often accepted uncritically.
- There is, first, the classical myth, vox populi vox dei, which
- attributes to the voice of the people a kind of final authority and
- unlimited wisdom. Its modern equivalent is faith in the ultimate
- common-sense rightness of that mythical figure, ‘the man in the street’,
- his vote, and his voice. The avoidance of the plural in both cases is
- characteristic. Yet people are, thank God, seldom univocal; and the
- various men in the various streets are as different as any collection of
- V.I.P.s in a conference-room. And if, on occasion, they do speak more or
- less in unison, what they say is not necessarily wise. They may be
- right, or they may be wrong. ‘The voice’ may be very firm on very
- doubtful issues. (Example: the nearly unanimous and unquestioning
- acceptance of the demand for ‘unconditional surrender’.) And it may
- waver on issues over which there is hardly room for doubt. (Example: the
- question whether to condone political blackmail, and mass-murder.) It
- may be well-intentioned but imprudent. (Example: the public reaction
- which destroyed the Hoare-Laval plan.) Or it may be neither
- well-intentioned nor very prudent. (Example: the approval of the
- Runciman mission; the approval of the Munich agreement of 1938.)
- I believe nevertheless that there is a kernel of truth hidden in the vox
- populi myth. One might put it in this way: In spite of the limited
- information at their disposal, many simple men are often wiser than
- their governments; and if not wiser, then inspired by better or more
- generous intentions. (Examples: the readiness of the people of
- Czechoslovakia to fight, on the eve of Munich; the Hoare-Laval reaction
- again.)
- One form of the myth—or perhaps of the philosophy behind the myth—which
- seems to me of particular interest and importance is the doctrine that
- truth is manifest. By this I mean the doctrine that, though error is
- something that needs to be explained (by lack of good will or by bias or
- by prejudice), truth will always make itself known, as long as it is not
- suppressed. Thus arises the belief that liberty, by sweeping away
- oppression and other obstacles, must of necessity lead to a Reign of
- Truth and Goodness—to ‘an Elysium created by reason and graced by the
- purest pleasures known to the love of mankind’, in the words of the
- concluding sentence of Condorcet’s Sketch for a Historical Picture of
- the Progress of the Human Mind.
- I have consciously oversimplified this important myth which also may be
- formulated: ‘Nobody, if presented with the truth, can fail to recognize
- it.’ I propose to call this ‘the theory of rationalist optimism’. It is
- a theory, indeed, which the Enlightenment shares with most of its
- political offspring and its intellectual forebears. Like the vox populi
- myth, it is another myth of the univocal voice. If humanity is a Being
- we ought to worship, then the unanimous voice of mankind ought to be our
- final authority. But we have learned that this is a myth, and we have
- learned to distrust unanimity.
- A reaction to this rationalist and optimistic myth is the romantic
- version of the vox populi theory—the doctrine of the authority and
- uniqueness of the popular will, of the ‘volonté generale’, of the spirit
- of the people, of the genius of the nation, of the group mind, or of the
- instinct of the blood. I need hardly repeat here the criticism which
- Kant and others—among them myself—have levelled against these doctrines
- of the irrational grasp of truth which culminates in the Hegelian
- doctrine of the cunning of reason which uses our passions as instruments
- for the instinctive or intuitive grasp of truth; and which makes it
- impossible for the people to be wrong, especially if they follow their
- passions rather than their reason.
- An important and still very influential variant of the myth may be
- described as the myth of the progress of public opinion, which is the
- myth of public opinion of the nineteenth-century Liberal. It may be
- illustrated by quoting a passage from Anthony Trollope’s Phineas Finn,
- to which Professor E. H. Gombrich has drawn my attention. Trollope
- describes the fate of a parliamentary motion for Irish tenant rights.
- The division comes, and the Ministry is beaten by a majority of
- twenty-three. ‘And now’, says Mr Monk, M.P., ‘the pity is that we are
- not a bit nearer tenant-rights than we were before.’
- ‘But we are nearer to it.’
- ‘In one sense, yes. Such a debate and such a majority will make men
- think. But no;—think is too high a word; as a rule men don’t think. But
- it will make them believe that there is something in it. Many who before
- regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that
- it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time
- it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among
- the things probable;—and so at last it will be ranged in the list of
- those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely
- needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made.’
- ‘It is not loss of time,’ said Phineas, ‘to have taken the first great
- step in making it.’
- ‘The first great step was taken long ago,’ said Mr Monk,—‘taken by men
- who were looked upon as revolutionary demagogues, almost as traitors,
- because they took it. But it is a great thing to take any step that
- leads us onwards.’
- The theory here expounded by the radical-liberal Member of Parliament,
- Mr Monk, may be perhaps called the ‘avant-garde theory of public
- opinion’, or the theory of the leadership of the advanced. It is the
- theory that there are some leaders or creators of public opinion who, by
- books and pamphlets and letters to The Times, or by parliamentary
- speeches and motions, manage to get some ideas first rejected and later
- debated and finally accepted. Public opinion is here conceived as a kind
- of public response to the thoughts and efforts of those aristocrats of
- the mind who produce new thoughts, new ideas, new arguments. It is
- conceived as slow, as somewhat passive and by nature conservative, but
- nevertheless as capable, in the end, of intuitively discerning the truth
- of the claims of the reformers—as the slow-moving but final and
- authoritative umpire of the debates of the elite. This, no doubt, is
- again another form of our myth, however much of the English reality may
- at first sight appear to conform to it. No doubt, the claims of
- reformers have often succeeded in exactly this way. But did only the
- valid claims succeed? I am inclined to believe that, in Great Britain,
- it is not so much the truth of an assertion or the wisdom of a proposal
- that is likely to win for a policy the support of public opinion, as the
- feeling that injustice is being done which can and must be rectified. It
- is the characteristic moral sensitivity of public opinion, and the way
- in which it has often been roused, at least in the past, which is
- described by Trollope; its intuition of injustice rather than its
- intuition of factual truth. It is debatable how far Trollope’s
- description is applicable to other countries; and it would be dangerous
- to assume that even in Great Britain public opinion will remain as
- sensitive as in the past.
- 2. The Dangers of Public Opinion
- Public opinion (whatever it may be) is very powerful. It may change
- governments, even non-democratic governments. Liberals ought to regard
- any such power with some degree of suspicion.
- Owing to its anonymity, public opinion is an irresponsible form of
- power, and therefore particularly dangerous from the liberal point of
- view. (Example: colour bars and other racial questions.) The remedy in
- one direction is obvious: by minimizing the power of the state, the
- danger of the influence of public opinion, exerted through the agency of
- the state, will be reduced. But this does not secure the freedom of the
- individual’s behaviour and thought from the direct pressure of public
- opinion. Here, the individual needs the powerful protection of the
- state. These conflicting requirements can be at least partly met by a
- certain kind of tradition—of which more below.
- The doctrine that public opinion is not irresponsible, but somehow
- ‘responsible to itself’—in the sense that its mistakes will rebound upon
- the public who held the mistaken opinion—is another form of the
- collectivist myth of public opinion: the mistaken propaganda of one
- group of citizens may easily harm a very different group.
- 3. Liberal Principles: A Group of Theses
- (1) The state is a necessary evil: its powers are not to be multiplied
- beyond what is necessary. One might call this principle the ‘Liberal
- Razor’. (In analogy to Ockham’s Razor, i.e. the famous principle that
- entities or essences must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.)
- In order to show the necessity of the state I do not appeal to Hobbes’
- homo-homini-lupus view of man. On the contrary, its necessity can be
- shown even if we assume that homo homini felis, or even that homo homini
- angelus—in other words, even if we assume that, because of their
- gentleness, or angelic goodness, nobody ever harms anybody else. In such
- a world there would still be weaker and stronger men, and the weaker
- ones would have no legal right to be tolerated by the stronger ones, but
- would owe them gratitude for their being so kind as to tolerate them.
- Those (whether strong or weak) who think this an unsatisfactory state of
- affairs, and who think that every person should have a right to live,
- and that every person should have a legal claim to be protected against
- the power of the strong, will agree that we need a state that protects
- the rights of all.
- It is easy to see that the state must be a constant danger, or (as I
- have ventured to call it) an evil, though a necessary one. For if the
- state is to fulfil its function, it must have more power at any rate
- than any single private citizen or public corporation; and although we
- might design institutions to minimize the danger that these powers will
- be misused, we can never eliminate the danger completely. On the
- contrary, it seems that most men will always have to pay for the
- protection of the state, not only in the form of taxes but even in the
- form of humiliation suffered, for example, at the hands of bullying
- officials. The thing is not to pay too heavily for it.
- (2) The difference between a democracy and a tyranny is that under a
- democracy the government can be got rid of without bloodshed; under a
- tyranny it cannot.
- (3) Democracy as such cannot confer any benefits upon the citizen and it
- should not be expected to do so. In fact democracy can do nothing—only
- the citizens of the democracy can act (including, of course, those
- citizens who comprise the government). Democracy provides no more than a
- framework within which the citizens may act in a more or less organized
- and coherent way.
- (4) We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but
- because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know.
- If the majority (or ‘public opinion’) decides in favour of tyranny, a
- democrat need not therefore suppose that some fatal inconsistency in his
- views has been revealed. He will realize, rather, that the democratic
- tradition in his country was not strong enough.
- (5) Institutions alone are never sufficient if not tempered by
- traditions. Institutions are always ambivalent in the sense that, in the
- absence of a strong tradition, they also may serve the opposite purpose
- to the one intended. For example, a parliamentary opposition is, roughly
- speaking, supposed to prevent the majority from stealing the taxpayer’s
- money. But I well remember an affair in a south-eastern European country
- which illustrates the ambivalence of this institution. There, the
- opposition shared the spoils with the majority.
- To sum up: Traditions are needed to form a kind of link between
- institutions and the intentions and valuations of individual men.
- (6) A Liberal Utopia—that is, a state rationally designed on a
- traditionless tabula rasa—is an impossibility. For the Liberal principle
- demands that the limitations to the freedom of each which are made
- necessary by social life should be minimized and equalized as much as
- possible (Kant). But how can we apply such an a priori principle in real
- life? Should we prevent a pianist from practising, or prevent his
- neighbour from enjoying a quiet afternoon? All such problems can be
- solved in practice only by an appeal to existing traditions and customs
- and to a traditional sense of justice; to common law, as it is called in
- Britain, and to an impartial judge’s appreciation of equity. All laws,
- being universal principles, have to be interpreted in order to be
- applied; and an interpretation needs some principles of concrete
- practice, which can be supplied only by a living tradition. And this
- holds more especially for the highly abstract and universal principles
- of Liberalism.
- (7) Principles of Liberalism may be described (at least today) as
- principles of assessing, and if necessary of modifying or changing,
- existing institutions, rather than of replacing existing institutions.
- One can express this also by saying that Liberalism is an evolutionary
- rather than a revolutionary creed (unless it is confronted by a
- tyrannical regime).
- (8) Among the traditions we must count as the most important is what we
- may call the ‘moral framework’ (corresponding to the institutional
- ‘legal framework’) of a society. This incorporates the society’s
- traditional sense of justice or fairness, or the degree of moral
- sensitivity it has reached. This moral framework serves as the basis
- which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between
- conflicting interests where this is necessary. It is, of course, itself
- not unchangeable, but it changes comparatively slowly. Nothing could be
- more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework, as it
- was consciously aimed at by Nazism. In the end its destruction will lead
- to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of
- all human values.
- 4. The Liberal Theory of Free Discussion
- Freedom of thought, and free discussion, are ultimate Liberal values
- which do not really need any further justification. Nevertheless, they
- can also be justified pragmatically in terms of the part they play in
- the search for truth.
- Truth is not manifest; and it is not easy to come by. The search for
- truth demands at least
- - (a) imagination
- - (b) trial and error
- - (c) the gradual discovery of our prejudices by way of (a), of (b),
- and of critical discussion.
- The Western rationalist tradition, which derives from the Greeks, is the
- tradition of critical discussion—of examining and testing propositions
- or theories by attempting to refute them. This critical rational method
- must not be mistaken for a method of proof, that is to say, for a method
- of finally establishing truth; nor is it a method which always secures
- agreement. Its value lies, rather, in the fact that participants in a
- discussion will, to some extent, change their minds, and part as wiser
- men.
- It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who
- have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that
- this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one’s
- partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand
- what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will
- be the more fruitful the more the partners’ backgrounds differ. Thus the
- value of a discussion depends largely upon the variety of the competing
- views. Had there been no Tower of Babel, we should invent it. The
- liberal does not dream of a perfect consensus of opinion; he only hopes
- for the mutual fertilization of opinions, and the consequent growth of
- ideas. Even when we solve a problem to universal satisfaction, we
- create, in solving it, many new problems over which we are bound to
- disagree. This is not to be regretted.
- Although the search for truth through free rational discussion is a
- public affair, it is not public opinion (whatever this may be) which
- results from it. Though public opinion may be influenced by science and
- may judge science, it is not the product of scientific discussion.
- But the tradition of rational discussion creates, in the political
- field, the tradition of government by discussion, and with it the habit
- of listening to another point of view; the growth of a sense of justice;
- and the readiness to compromise.
- Our hope is thus that traditions, changing and developing under the
- influence of critical discussion and in response to the challenge of new
- problems, may replace much of what is usually called ‘public opinion’,
- and take over the functions which public opinion is supposed to fulfil.
- 5. The Forms of Public Opinion
- There are two main forms of public opinion; institutionalized and
- non-institutionalized.
- Examples of institutions serving or influencing public opinion: the
- press (including Letters to the Editor); political parties; societies
- like the Mont Pèlerin Society; Universities; book-publishing;
- broadcasting; theatre; cinema; television.
- Examples of non-institutionalized public opinion: what people say in
- railway carriages and other public places about the latest news, or
- about foreigners, or about ‘coloured men’; or what they say about one
- another across the dinner table. (This may even become
- institutionalized.)
- 6. Some Practical Problems: Censorship and Monopolies of Publicity
- No theses are offered in this section—only problems.
- How far does the case against censorship depend upon a tradition of
- self-imposed censorship?
- How far do publishers’ monopolies establish a kind of censorship? How
- far are thinkers free to publish their ideas? Can there be complete
- freedom to publish? And ought there to be complete freedom to publish
- anything?
- The influence and responsibility of the intelligentsia: (a) upon the
- spread of ideas (example: socialism); (b) upon the acceptance of often
- tyrannical fashions (example: abstract art).
- The freedom of the Universities: (a) state interference; (b) private
- interference; (c) interference in the name of public opinion.
- The management of (or planning for) public opinion. ‘Public relations
- officers.’
- The problem of the propaganda for cruelty in newspapers (especially in
- ‘comics’), cinema, etc.
- The problem of taste. Standardization and levelling.
- The problem of propaganda and advertisement versus the spread of
- information.
- 7. A Short List of Political Illustrations
- This is a list containing cases which should be worthy of careful
- analysis.
- - (1) The Hoare-Laval Plan and its defeat by the unreasonable moral
- enthusiasm of public opinion.
- - (2) The Abdication of Edward VIII.
- - (3) Munich.
- - (4) Unconditional surrender.
- - (5) The Crichel-Down case.
- - (6) The British habit of accepting hardship without grumbling.
- 8. Summary
- That intangible and vague entity called public opinion sometimes reveals
- an unsophisticated shrewdness or, more typically, a moral sensitivity
- superior to that of the government in power. Nevertheless, it is a
- danger to freedom if it is not moderated by a strong liberal tradition.
- It is dangerous as an arbiter of taste, and unacceptable as an arbiter
- of truth. But it may sometimes assume the role of an enlightened arbiter
- of justice. (Example: The liberation of slaves in the British colonies.)
- Unfortunately it can be ‘managed’. These dangers can be counteracted
- only by strengthening the liberal tradition.
- Public opinion should be distinguished from the publicity of free and
- critical discussion which is (or should be) the rule in science, and
- which includes the discussion of questions of justice and other moral
- issues. Public opinion is influenced by, but neither the result of, nor
- under the control of, discussions of this kind. Their beneficial
- influence will be the greater the more honestly, simply and clearly,
- these discussions are conducted.
- Note
- This paper was read before the Sixth Meeting of the Mont Pèlerin
- Society at their Conference in Venice, September 1954; it was published
- (in Italian) in Il Politico, 20, 1955, and (in German) in Ordo, 8, 1956;
- it has not been previously published in English.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement